I really wanted to explore the theme of vernacular culture as I think its a very interesting and relevant topic in relation to my quote. I think a good representation of vernacular art and the way its viewed is the snobbish approach people take when talking about 'fine art' as a pose to 'arts and crafts' what makes vernacular art less appealing to high culture? is it the fact that it isn't created or commissioned to brag or show of wealth, is it sometimes sneered at because the bourgeoisie are too scared ti face the fact that in fact art isn't just theirs to keep and control, its accessible to people from every single walk of life. however hard they try they cant stop the masses being creative so instead they must sneer at them and create high art and low art
Vernacular culture is the cultural forms made and organised by ordinary, often indigenous people, as distinct from the high culture of an elite. One feature of vernacular culture is that it is informal
'this isn’t the first time the mainstream art world has performed a celebratory rediscovery dance with vernacular artists, so the current climate of tentative self-congratulation and hopefulness comes with some serious caveats. The interest of the privileged, urban, predominantly European American classes in the expressive cultural production of those who look and live differently, whether earnest and benign or voyeuristic and exploitative, is nothing new. It’s hardwired into Western culture, and the form it takes today can be traced back hundreds of years to the misty beginnings of the condition we call modernity. We have an entire category of dichotomous language for it—high/low, fine/folk, insider/outsider, academic/self-taught—about which skeins of torturous prose have been written, but little untangled.'
http://www.artnews.com/2015/10/07/the-error-of-margins-vernacular-artists-and-the-mainstream-art-world/
upon reading this article I found it hard to gain any relevant information, from my understanding of 'vernacular culture' it felt like the whole article was missing the point especially when it started talking about the kind of money these pieces were making and who was exhibiting them. Isn't this quite the opposite of what vernacular art is? art created not for a group in society, not for money, not for anything other than personal enjoyment and self expression? I actually found more interesting content in the comments from readers and I think this comment summed up what I was thinking quite well
'The whole point of "vernacular art" is that it cannot be "contextualised" and it neither should be. Simply put, it doesn't belong. Self-taught artists need to be appreciated on their own, each as a unique individual. John Ollman lists a group of artists who have been influenced by outsider artists, as if the vernacular needed credence or the approval of a "real" artist. They do not. None knew of the others, and the most important of them never went to a museum or took an art class. None sat around the Cedar bar arguing over each other's work. There is no "school" of vernacular artists, and to lump them among others, be they trained or not, is an insult and a misnomer. They are distinguished and DEFINED by their oneness. Any claim they "belong" next to each other on a wall is not thinking very hard. It is the most perfect art world dichotomy.'
No comments:
Post a Comment